Re: [9fans] Plan ? (was: native install)

[Patrick Kelly <kameo76890@gmail.com>]

>>
> "Where's the beef?" is certainly a fair and reasonable thing to ask.

I got hungry and ate it.

> What I'm wondering, however, is "_what's_ the beef?"

Beef comes from the cow.

> As you said, these arguments have indeed been going on for some
> time - so, why only talk and no action? It's weird.

Those of you who desire features haven't implemented anything. Those
of us who use Plan 9 or even just it's tools don't find a need for
anything else. When we do need something, we write it.

> I can't help but wonder: where's the crux of the inertia?

I ate that too.

> Are the core Plan 9 design concepts in fact ineffective or
> unsuitable for
> building a general purpose computing environment?

Should that statement be valid, the creation of UNIX in the first
place is an utter pointless failure; are you willing to say that? Your
justifying the Windows way and slanderizing one of the most
revolutionary changes to systems there was. Plan 9 took that change to
the next level, so you'd be slanderiIng us even more.

Plan 9 is general purpose. There's no reason you can write software
for, say, office suites, graphics edition, audio editing, MIDI,
gaming, or anything else. We just don't have the need for it.

Should you need something, please bring it up. We would be happy to
actually discuss something, so far you don't seem to actually want that.

> I find that very hard to believe - but there's over 15 years of
> evidence
> which seems to imply just that.

Read up on why Plan 9 was written. We've been succeeding for 20 years
so far. We may not be wide spread, but many prefer that.

> No one's willing to spearhead a "General Purpose 9" experiment, and no
> one's interested in collaborating on and contributing to such a
> project?

I am, although I'm paying attention to numerous psychological
concerns, and a large documentation base about language design (most
from Backus).

I prefered to wait to announce this, but we have been disgraced long
enough by people who aren't willing to actually do anything.

I would also also prefer to design the entire toolchain and kernel
myself, then let others in. Mostly I'm doing this to proove we need to
pay more attention to psychological issues in computing, and to show
we should actually read research papers about language/system design.
Should the ideas turn out valid, it'll turn it into a system
specializing in multimedia, specifically professional audio. Plan 9 is
general purpose enough to remain compatable with, even though there's
significant design differences. File oriented design really helps. Yet
you called this a flaw.

Yes I know what I'm getting into.

> "If you want [general purpose], you know where to get it." seems to
> be the period that ends all such discussion.

File oriented, non-specialized; sounds like Plan 9.